5 ms·

This is akin to saying the Fair Labor Standards Act was a "bad law" because it ended child labor, which I'm sure also caused a temporary "net loss of jobs, econ

This is akin to saying the Fair Labor Standards Act was a "bad law" because it ended child labor, which I'm sure also caused a temporary "net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement"

zaroth 6y ago
It’s not akin to that at all, because child labor laws concern minors and this law concerns adults. Unless your argument is that there’s nothing an adult should be able to do that a child shouldn’t be able to do?
twblalock 6y ago
Not really. AB5 hurts a lot of small businesses that weren't doing anything wrong. It's a classic case of unintended consequences.
- defterGoose 6y ago
  I mean, technically those small businesses using child labor weren't "doing anything wrong" before the law was passed either.
  - CountSessine 6y ago
    No, that's not true. They were doing something wrong, because children are generally recognized as not being fit to give consent for all sorts of things. The laws against child labor merely recognized this. The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.
    - zjaffee 6y ago
      Is the existence of a unionized workforce against consensual adult labor? The expanded use of for contract work has largely been a tool to walk around legislation to improve labor standards. In jobs where it is virtually impossible to organize others doing a similar task such as was the case with most of the jobs impacted by AB5, its totally reasonable for these folks to lobby the government to fight for their interests.
    - n4r9 6y ago
      It is murkier, but in many cases there's a strong argument that employment is exploitative whilst still consensual.
      - CountSessine 6y ago
        Given that there's broad agreement on what consent is and very little agreement on what exploitation is, that's always going to be contentious. Maybe with a labour monopsyny? I guess we don't want the big mining company in the small town to run down it's workers. Whenever I think of the best argument for unions, I think of small towns subjugated by mining companies or mills. But a ride-share company with competition in a big city?
    - Jotra7 6y ago
      No job is consensual if you're born poor in capitalism.
Grimm1 6y ago
Except these are adults of sound mind willingly entering into the agreement. I absolutely loathe these types of arguments first because its false equivalence and secondly, because why do you know better than the Freelance Journalists who were hurt by this? Stop nannying.
- vkou 6y ago
  Adults of sound mind enter into all sorts of highly regulated agreements, starting from employment, to tenancy, to gym memberships, to even things like marriages [1]. The reason for why all those agreements are highly regulated isn't because they adults entering them are not of sound mind. The reason for it is that there is often a large imbalance of power between the two parties in the contract. This kind of regulation has been the foundation of common law for nearly a millennium, and has been present in other legal systems for far longer than that. [1] (As it turns out, you can't [2] marry someone with the stipulation that they can't divorce you, or with a fly-by-night, grossly inequitable pre-nup. [2] Well, you can, but the judges will laugh your contract out of the room when you try to enforce it.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Economic regulation of this order has not been around > 300 years in fact it's only been really been a question of what is the right balance since post industrialization. And the fact we're having this discussion at all means there are arguments to be had in either direction for worker regulation of this nature. I personally believe over regulation is harmful and we're currently seeing that harm play out to independent workers in multiple industries in California.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - twblalock 6y ago
    That's a pretty generic argument. We all know the government creates regulations. Why are you defending AB5 specifically? Why is this specific regulation good? Keep in mind that it has had a lot of negative, unintended side effects already.
snowwrestler 6y ago
A better example is probably the minimum wage, which also imposes government-mandated conditions on employment, applies to adults, and is countered by very similar arguments: it harms economic activity, and interferes with the ability of adult citizens to enter into whatever employment agreement they desire. Whether the minimum wage actually harms economic activity does not have a clear answer; you can find studies all over the place in terms of conclusions. And the supporting argument--that businesses should be regulated because they have asymmetrical power when hiring--is also used to justify other policies that HN folks tend to like, such as the California prohibition on non-compete agreements.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
qeternity 6y ago
Not at all. Children are not able to make many legal decisions for themselves. As a society we make this distinction repeatedly from contract law to sexual intercourse. And we’ve decided that whatever economic inefficiencies arise are worth the social gains. This however is very different. Adults (in the US) are allowed to willfully enter into mostly any sort of agreement with another consenting party. In areas where that’s not the case, there is usually some other greater fundamental social protection that we seek to prioritize (i.e. you cannot legally permit someone to murder you). This law however continues to encroach on the things that free individuals can do. If I want to work for Uber under the terms that apparently many millions of others also want to, then that is my right. The government is effectively seeking to make this illegal...for my own protection. The issue here is that 99% of HN commentators, politicians, etc have no experience in the gig economy yet project their own ideology onto the situation. Would it be better for workers if Uber provided more benefits? Sure. But Uber loses billions every quarter. So who pays for this? If Uber doesn’t pass on the costs to consumers, it goes bust. If Uber does, there’s a good chance that consumers spend less, or use alternatives. Either way it is likely to harm drivers. The beauty of a free market is that if Uber was legitimately a bad deal for drivers, they would have never had a business in the first place.

This is akin to saying the Fair Labor Standards Act was a "bad law" because it ended child labor, which I'm sure also caused a temporary "net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement"

zaroth 6y ago

It’s not akin to that at all, because child labor laws concern minors and this law concerns adults. Unless your argument is that there’s nothing an adult should be able to do that a child shouldn’t be able to do?

twblalock 6y ago

Not really. AB5 hurts a lot of small businesses that weren't doing anything wrong. It's a classic case of unintended consequences.

defterGoose 6y ago
I mean, technically those small businesses using child labor weren't "doing anything wrong" before the law was passed either.
- CountSessine 6y ago
  No, that's not true. They were doing something wrong, because children are generally recognized as not being fit to give consent for all sorts of things. The laws against child labor merely recognized this. The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.
  - zjaffee 6y ago
    Is the existence of a unionized workforce against consensual adult labor? The expanded use of for contract work has largely been a tool to walk around legislation to improve labor standards. In jobs where it is virtually impossible to organize others doing a similar task such as was the case with most of the jobs impacted by AB5, its totally reasonable for these folks to lobby the government to fight for their interests.
  - n4r9 6y ago
    It is murkier, but in many cases there's a strong argument that employment is exploitative whilst still consensual.
    - CountSessine 6y ago
      Given that there's broad agreement on what consent is and very little agreement on what exploitation is, that's always going to be contentious. Maybe with a labour monopsyny? I guess we don't want the big mining company in the small town to run down it's workers. Whenever I think of the best argument for unions, I think of small towns subjugated by mining companies or mills. But a ride-share company with competition in a big city?
  - Jotra7 6y ago
    No job is consensual if you're born poor in capitalism.

Grimm1 6y ago

Except these are adults of sound mind willingly entering into the agreement. I absolutely loathe these types of arguments first because its false equivalence and secondly, because why do you know better than the Freelance Journalists who were hurt by this? Stop nannying.

vkou 6y ago
Adults of sound mind enter into all sorts of highly regulated agreements, starting from employment, to tenancy, to gym memberships, to even things like marriages [1]. The reason for why all those agreements are highly regulated isn't because they adults entering them are not of sound mind. The reason for it is that there is often a large imbalance of power between the two parties in the contract. This kind of regulation has been the foundation of common law for nearly a millennium, and has been present in other legal systems for far longer than that. [1] (As it turns out, you can't [2] marry someone with the stipulation that they can't divorce you, or with a fly-by-night, grossly inequitable pre-nup. [2] Well, you can, but the judges will laugh your contract out of the room when you try to enforce it.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Economic regulation of this order has not been around > 300 years in fact it's only been really been a question of what is the right balance since post industrialization. And the fact we're having this discussion at all means there are arguments to be had in either direction for worker regulation of this nature. I personally believe over regulation is harmful and we're currently seeing that harm play out to independent workers in multiple industries in California.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- twblalock 6y ago
  That's a pretty generic argument. We all know the government creates regulations. Why are you defending AB5 specifically? Why is this specific regulation good? Keep in mind that it has had a lot of negative, unintended side effects already.

snowwrestler 6y ago

A better example is probably the minimum wage, which also imposes government-mandated conditions on employment, applies to adults, and is countered by very similar arguments: it harms economic activity, and interferes with the ability of adult citizens to enter into whatever employment agreement they desire. Whether the minimum wage actually harms economic activity does not have a clear answer; you can find studies all over the place in terms of conclusions. And the supporting argument--that businesses should be regulated because they have asymmetrical power when hiring--is also used to justify other policies that HN folks tend to like, such as the California prohibition on non-compete agreements.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

qeternity 6y ago

Not at all. Children are not able to make many legal decisions for themselves. As a society we make this distinction repeatedly from contract law to sexual intercourse. And we’ve decided that whatever economic inefficiencies arise are worth the social gains. This however is very different. Adults (in the US) are allowed to willfully enter into mostly any sort of agreement with another consenting party. In areas where that’s not the case, there is usually some other greater fundamental social protection that we seek to prioritize (i.e. you cannot legally permit someone to murder you). This law however continues to encroach on the things that free individuals can do. If I want to work for Uber under the terms that apparently many millions of others also want to, then that is my right. The government is effectively seeking to make this illegal...for my own protection. The issue here is that 99% of HN commentators, politicians, etc have no experience in the gig economy yet project their own ideology onto the situation. Would it be better for workers if Uber provided more benefits? Sure. But Uber loses billions every quarter. So who pays for this? If Uber doesn’t pass on the costs to consumers, it goes bust. If Uber does, there’s a good chance that consumers spend less, or use alternatives. Either way it is likely to harm drivers. The beauty of a free market is that if Uber was legitimately a bad deal for drivers, they would have never had a business in the first place.